Lisa Shops Sustainably by the Seine

A few months ago I wrote a post about the previous head of the EPA, Carol Browner, and her risible claim that she was creating jobs. Her successor, Lisa Jackson, is worse.

Lisa has just ordered that in the future, American coal will be burned in the most polluting way possible. She ruled that coal can’t be burned in new US power plants, so it’s going to be exported to shabbily built highly-polluting furnaces in third world countries. That’s environmental protection at its finest.

Having done that, now she has jetted off to Paris with her usual granola entourage, which consists mostly of nuts and flakes. I guess when the party is in Paris, video-conferencing is soooo last week …

CONTACT:

Alisha Johnson

Johnson.alisha@epa.gov

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 28, 2012

EPA Administrator Leads U.S. Delegation to Paris for Meetings on Economic and Environmental Cooperation

WASHINGTON – Today U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P. Jackson arrived in Paris, France to meet with environmental leaders from more than 40 nations to discuss the Agency’s international efforts on urban sustainability. During the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Environment Policy Committee’s ministerial meeting, Administrator Jackson will represent the United States in discussions about the upcoming Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development, and talk about ways in which the environment committee can support the global conference’s efforts.

EPA has a long history of international collaboration on a wide range of global environmental issues. In recent years, EPA’s bilateral and multilateral partnerships have increased efforts to address environmental and governance challenges. In collaboration with other nations through the OECD, EPA is furthering its mission to protect the environment by ensuring national security, facilitating commerce, addressing climate change, and promoting sustainable development.

“Furthering its mission”??

Y’know, it’s funny but I don’t recall any of those things being in the EPA’s mission. Foolish me, I thought the Environmental Protection Agency was about, well, protecting the environment …

The EPA sees “ensuring national security” as part of their mission?

The EPA thinks their job is “facilitating commerce”?

The EPA believe in the fairy tale of “sustainable”, and sees their task as “promoting sustainable development“?

Please, someone, anyone, put these folks out of their misery. Why are they babbling about national security? Why is some unelected bureaucrat jetting to Paris to discuss “urban sustainability”?

What does that even mean, urban sustainability? The cities of the planet have sustained themselves for centuries without clueless, gormless bureaucrats meeting in Paris to discuss how to sustain them.

My advice?

Hey, I’m never one for putting people’s emails up on the web, but Alisha Johnson drew the short straw and they list her email at the start of their press release above as the person to contact about this colossal waste of money in time of scarcity. So I’d let her know how you feel about Lisa’s little shopping trip.

Then email your Senator and Congressman, and tell them the same. The EPA, and indeed the US, should not be involved in international efforts on urban sustainability. That’s not its mission any more than “national security” is the mission of the EPA. Name me one thing that these international conferences have actually achieved … it’s just another excuse to hang out at very large government expense in a glamorous foreign city.

I’d write more, but this subject angrifies my blood mightily, and I fear I might wax wroth and utter wildly entertaining but eventually counter-productive speculations as to the species and familial inter-relationships of Ms. Jackson’s various antecedents, and cast aspersions on her personal habits, genetic challenges, and cranial horsepower … wouldn’t want to do that, so I’ll stop here.

Post navigation

80 thoughts on “Lisa Shops Sustainably by the Seine”

“I’d write more, but this subject angrifies my blood mightily, and I fear I might wax wroth and utter wildly entertaining but eventually counter-productive speculations as to the species and familial inter-relationships of Ms. Jackson’s various antecedents, and cast aspersions on her personal habits, genetic challenges, and cranial horsepower …”

Besides, Ace of Spades will probably take care of all that, and he’s had lots more practice.

In the Younger Days of the environmental movement, the people who wanted to save the environment were the ones who enjoyed going to natural or wild places. Not so anymore, the save the world people are strictly urban and the environment doesn’t mean what it used to. Now it is saving The World, not usually particular beauty spots.

Mercury levels are still too high in many rivers. Pay attention to that in our own backyard Miss Pinenuts, instead of jetting off to some other country. Let these other countries decide to treat their land, air, and water in whatever way they wish. It is none of your blankety blank business, and especially so in this time of belt tightening. You have work to do here from your office. I want to eat fish more often than once a month. When can I expect your report on that? [crickets]

Damn it. Why, why did I vote you all in in the first place? I cannot measure the extent of my disappointment in your work.

Just one more reason in a ship load of reasons to not ever vote the democratic ticket again. My vote will be for Ron Paul, even if I have to write him in. He won’t shove AGW or religious nosiness and edicts down my throat.

“From the climate alarmism viewpoint, clipping the wings of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), who’ve been engaged in some clumsy unilateral de-carbonisation of America, has already been well signalled but that’s not enough.”

I wish to start a new fund to purchase Skype accounts for all these bureaucrats. Heck, let’s buy them webcams as well. With this new, cutting-edge technology, these hard-working dedicated public servants can confer and collaborate without having to travel and meet face-to-face.

This is all made possible by some guy names Al Gore, who created the “Information Superhighway.”

Thank you agin Willis.
This is a sad commentary of a radical leftist bureaucrat setting national policy to help destroy America while trying to live a lifestyle to emulate Nero.
One thing we know is that unaccountable power corrupts. The EPA is one of our best examples.
Another thing we know is that if you corrupt the culture and language it is easer to defeat a nation from within.
Gay used to mean happy. Environmental protection used to mean environmental protection, not a code word for leftist political agendas.
Sustainibility used to mean a system that balanced its inputs and outputs to maintain itself indefinitely. Kind of like logging and then replanting or conservation tillage and crop rotation.
Conservation of natral resources used to mean wise use, indenifitely (sound like real sustainibility?).
Wrong is right, up is down, slavery is freedom, etc.
We need to protect our culture and our language to begin rolling 1984 back.

All week on my daily commute the ‘info panels’ above the ‘periph’ have been warning of high pollution levels and ‘advising’ motorists to slow down to 70km.

Also I have never seen those messages so early in the morning or so late in the evening (been a tough week at work).

Found that puzzling as no way was Paris more polluted than ‘average’.

The city sits in a bowl in a plain and can get muggy if there is low cloud for a few days but it’s been clear and sunny all week. A lot of people sitting out in the parks enjoying the first days of spring.

I think those pollution signs were switched on to ‘welcome’ Lisa and her cronies to the city. In fact I’d bet on it.

so it’s going to be exported to shabbily built highly-polluting furnaces in third world countries.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.htmlIn 2008, China’s National Development and Reform Commission adopted a standard requiring all new coal-fired power plants to be state-of-the-art commercially available or better technology. As a result, today most of the world’s most efficient (supercritical and ultra-supercritical) coal-fired power plants are being built in China.

No one with a brain would burn imported coal in a sub critical coal fired plant. The transportation costs make coal too expensive to ‘waste’ in an inefficient coal fired plant

Just a look at the recent construction history of coal fired plants in the US over the last 10 years.
31 Sub-Critical plants made up more then half of the plants constructed.

Just another BIG reason to vote the current administration out. Everybody–make sure your kids and relatives vote. You might also pitch WUWT to them. Remember my challenge of everybody finding one new person a week to recruit?

The rich western country of the United States maneuvers itself into a position of not being able to burn coal forcing it to export the coal to third world countries. The pollution caused by third world countries burning coal is justification for rich western countries, like the United States, to put shackles on the economic progress of third world countries.
See how this works?

The EPA has a long history of international collaboration on a wide range of global environmental issues. should read :-The EPA has a long history of international interference on a wide range of global environmental issues that are none of it’s concern.

Moving so pollution to another place, should be proof to everyone that it has…..

…..absolutely nothing to do with pollution
Brian H says:
March 30, 2012 at 10:32 am

I think Lisa is envious of Janet, and is emulating her.
==================================================
If by Janet you mean Reno, then you’re correct! It isn’t about pollution, protection, or the environment. It’s about jackbooted thugs dressed in hemp clothes usurping individual liberties while destroying the economy.

Off to Paris, which sits atop the Roman ruins of its earlier days. I’d say that’s a model of urban sustainability.

EPA is too remote from the people. I suggest the next Congress move EPA headquarters and all its staff to somewhere out in the Heartland. Lenexa, Kansas comes to mind. Not too far a drive to Kansas City for a good time.

“The EPA believe in the fairy tale of “sustainable”, and sees their task as “promoting sustainable development“?”

Well… let me think for a moment about it. What does “sustainable” mean? Something that can sustain, obviously. Sustainable development is such kind of development which would allow us develop for a very long time. Now you guys, when you read “sustainable”, you see windmills and solar plants – but the important fact is, these have in fact nothing to do with sustainable development. Promoting windmills and solar plants in fact leads to reversion of development as that would force us to shut down large portion of our industry. And most importantly sustainable development definitely doesn’t mean moving to certain technology and staying at it – that would be no development at all.

And EPA has a lot to do about it, as different people have different ideas of what “sustainable development” is. Mine, for example, is to transfer from fossil fuels to nuclear in the first step. Someone would prefer extending fossil fuel usage. And EPA is one of those who need to have say at things, to prevent us destroying our environment while sustaining our development.

So… well… I see nothing wrong on sustainable development and EPA role in it. So far it seems to have sustained quite well although it may have somewhat slowed down recently. The only problem is what people see under it, that’s what needs to be changed. Windmills and solar plants are not sustainable development, that’s all.

In 2008, China’s National Development and Reform Commission adopted a standard requiring all new coal-fired power plants to be state-of-the-art commercially available or better technology. As a result, today most of the world’s most efficient (supercritical and ultra-supercritical) coal-fired power plants are being built in China.

No one with a brain would burn imported coal in a sub critical coal fired plant. The transportation costs make coal too expensive to ‘waste’ in an inefficient coal fired plant

Harry, while I wish I could believe in unicorns, fairy tales, and the claims you advance, even your own citation (above) disagrees. It says:

Only half the country’s [China’s] coal-fired power plants have the emissions control equipment to remove sulfur compounds that cause acid rain, and even power plants with that technology do not always use it. China has not begun regulating some of the emissions that lead to heavy smog in big cities.

Even among China’s newly built plants, not all are modern. Only about 60 percent of the new plants are being built using newer technology that is highly efficient, but more expensive.

China is importing steam coal today, as we speak, and burning it in plants without even sulfur controls, as we speak. Your claim that no one would burn imported coal in such a facility is not true. One source says:

Even after the onset of the worldwide financial and economic slowdown in 2008, the Chinese coal mining industry still pushed for higher prices for contract steam coal. Not surprisingly, China’s big utilities became increasingly frustrated with this.

Meanwhile, for example, steam coal prices in Australia dropped substantially due to weak coal demand in the rest of the world. As overseas coal became cost competitive with domestic supply, utilities in China’s coastal provinces turned to the international market for a significant amount of coal imports (figure 5). In 2009, China’s coal imports accounted for 15 percent of global coal trade volume.

In other words, Australian and Indonesian coal is burned in China because it is cheaper than domestic Chinese coal. So your claim that imported coal wouldn’t be used in inefficient plants is a non-starter. Imported coal is used wherever it is cheaper than Chinese coal, which due to internal transportation problems is particularly on the coast.

As a result, every Chinese power plant located where imports are cheaper than Chinese coal uses imported coal, regardless of their efficiency. As you say, “no one with a brain” would use Chinese coal when imported coal is cheaper. In fact, the less efficient the plants are, the more important the cheap imported coal becomes, because their fuel costs are a larger proportion of the total. You have the stick by the wrong end.

Just a look at the recent construction history of coal fired plants in the US over the last 10 years.
31 Sub-Critical plants made up more then half of the plants constructed.

So what? You say that as though “sub-critical” were a measure of how much pollution control the plant has. It is not. It is just a measure of the temperature of the steam, and nothing else. It means nothing about pollution. You can have a supercritical or an ultracritical plant that emits loads of pollutants. And in the US, both sub-, super-, and ultra-critical plants are subjected to the identical pollution control laws and requirements, so your distinction is meaningless in terms of how much pollution they put out.

In short … sadly, there is little that is correct in any of your claims.

Thanks, Michael. Your point is generally correct, but that citation is from 2009. The EPA budget peaked in 2010 at $10.3 billion. In 2011 it was $1.6 billion less than 2010, at $8.7 billion. The 2012 EPA budget request is for $8.97 billion, which they describe as “13% less than 2010”, and which they pointedly don’t describe as “3% more than 2011”.

I’d give you more details, but the EPA servers at nepis.epa.gov are down, so the information is unavailable … which is a fitting comment on their ability to get the job done …

For what it’s worth, the official mission statement of the EPA is:
“The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment.”
Their “purpose” is a bit longer – more info here:http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/whatwedo.html

R. de Haan says:
March 30, 2012 at 11:29 am
Let it be clear that this Administration is completely destroying the USA.
Not by accident but on purpose and by design.
================================================

Perfect photo!
An over fed bureaucrat, peering suspiciously out at the world over her ‘perched on the end of her nose’ glasses! An ‘environmental protection’ bureaucrat, personally using grossly excessive amounts of carbon based food, clothing, housing, energy,and transportation resources in her claimed pursuit of a ‘sustainable, carbon neutral’ world environment!

… So… well… I see nothing wrong on sustainable development and EPA role in it. So far it seems to have sustained quite well although it may have somewhat slowed down recently. The only problem is what people see under it, that’s what needs to be changed. Windmills and solar plants are not sustainable development, that’s all.

Since the EPA clearly thinks that windmills and solar plants are sustainable and CO2 is teh eevil, how can you possibly see nothing wrong with the EPA’s role in “sustainability”? You seem very reasonable with your call for nuclear, while the EPA opposes, well, just about everything. You might enjoy my post “Nothing is Sustainable“.

Willis: Y’know, it’s funny but I don’t recall any of those things being in the EPA’s mission. Foolish me, I thought the Environmental Protection Agency was about, well, protecting the environment …”
***********************************************************************************************************
A vacuum is an environment also. Albeit, not very a hospitable one; but that’s not Lisa’s concern.

@Pamela Gray says:
March 30, 2012 at 10:08 am
” Dear Miss Pinenuts, […] Damn it. Why, why did I vote you all in in the first place?”

I was not aware that these bureaucrats were voted in, least of all by you. Besides, the EPA carries out its mischief under protection of the law. Are you planning to vote out the jokers in the Supreme Court as well? Oh that’s right, you can’t.

The EPA has a long history of international collaboration on a wide range of global environmental issues. should read :-The EPA has a long history of international interference on a wide range of global environmental issues that are none of it’s concern.
_________________________________BINGO!

I wish the USA would get its G… D…. nose out of other peoples business. That is what Ron Paul wants and that is why he is the only republican candidate that shows he would win against Obama.

Despite what the mass media would have us believe most people are not radical right wing or radical left wing. We are all sick and tire of the graft and corruption and the waste of our tax dollars. We are sick of the greed of the bankers, politicians, crony “Capitalism” and idiotic laws and regulations.

The mass media plays up the difference between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party but the schism is really just “Divide and Conquer” propaganda.

Ocupy Wall Street:

“Declaration of the Occupation of New York City,” organizers recently declared:

…. we acknowledge the reality: that there is only one race, the human race, and our survival requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their brethren; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known…

The Tea Party movement stands for many American ideals. The first and foremost of these is the idea that taxation has reached bizarre and unreasonable levels… More to the point, the Tea Party movement believes that government itself is out of control.

Many Americans believe intuitively that they alone possess the rights to their personal freedom, but that the government has adopted a babysitter role that squelches that freedom. The Tea Party movement believes that “We the People” are the true deciders, and that the government simply acts on the citizens’ behalf. [Sure sounds similar to OW]

Tea Party Goals

Low taxes
Dramatically smaller government with a much reduced role
Substantially less central government (Washington) and a preference for states rights
More individual freedom
Free market prosperity

Note Free Market prosperity is not the World Trade Organization type Free Market but the Mises type free market “…let’s define the term “free market.” Dictionary.com defines a “market” as “an opportunity to buy or sell” and a “free market” as “an economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.” ~ Art Carden In other words it is allowing a black woman to set-up in business braiding hair without major hassles from the regulating class.

Yes the view points are somewhat different but with out the Regulating Class playing both ends against the middle, I think a decent government is possible. Most “Right Wingers” are Christians so taking care of your neighbor is part of their belief system despite the media hype that says otherwise. That point is the tip off that the schism is media propaganda created and not real. The other point is that BOTH sides are royal ticked off.

So what the heck is actually going on?
The truth is we have three different categories of people and not just two as portrayed by the Media. The left wing, the right wing and the rent seeking regulating class that preys upon the other two classes. Unfortunately the regulating class controls both the Democrats , the Republicans AND the media so they remain largely hidden. So far the Republican voters in the form of the Tea Party have woken up first. Hopefully the other side will take off the blinders and see the Bushs and Obama and Clinton were all cut from the same cloth, the blood sucking regulating class.

To be fair on the EPA a big chunk of their budget ( $3.9 Bill) is spent on improving the quality of waterways and clean drinking water. As well as $0.5 Bill for improving water in the Great Lakes.
This is the reason for the jump in the last 3 years. These amounts are spent entirely on local projects

The items shown on the press release are not listed on their web site as part of their ‘mission’

“The EPA believe in the fairy tale of “sustainable”, and sees their task as “promoting sustainable development“?”

Well… let me think for a moment about it. What does “sustainable” mean?
____________________________________________
“promoting sustainable development“ Is promoting the United Nations Agenda 21. Therefore the EPA is acting as an agency of the United Nations IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY and not as part of the US Government.

Lisa Jackson 20th January 2012, “Keynote Remarks at the National Council for Science and the Environment’s “National Conference on Environment and Security”

“As Rio+20, the 20th anniversary of the 1992 Earth Summit, approaches in June, we have a chance to learn lessons, build partnerships and put in place innovative strategies that can reshape the economic and environmental future of our entire planet.”

“It is the rarest of opportunities to truly change the world, and make a difference that will benefit billions of people. It means working together to strengthen the effectiveness of environmental governance”

“Join us at the Corporate Sustainability Forum in Rio. Organized by the UN Global Compact, it will showcase innovative public-private partnerships and business contributions. Only with your strong support and leadership we can change and shape the world we want and we can make this world better for all. That is why I am asking you to help the U.N. to help us protect planet earth and help lift millions of people from poverty and disease.”

Gro Harlem Brundtland, Socialist International, 15 -17 September 1992

“At the Rio Conference on Environment and Development (1992) it was made clear that we are heading towards a crisis of uncontrollable dimensions unless we change course. Securing peace, sustainable development and democracy requires that nations, in their common interest, establish an effective system of global governance and security.”

How about Australian coal –http://www.ccsd.biz/PSE_Handbook/6/6/3/As Australian coal has low sulfur content, control of SO2 Sulfur Dioxide emissions from utility boilers in Australia is by dispersion through a high stack. Further reduction through the use of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) has not been required.

Australia doesn’t require scrubbers on power plants. They use ‘low sulfur’ coal.

A statement such as
“X Percent” of China power plants don’t have scrubbers is meaningless unless the quality of the coal being used is known.

How about this article about the state of scrubbers on US coal power plants from 2004.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5673484Coal-fired power plants supply half of the nation’s electricity. In 2004, two-thirds of this power came from plants without scrubbers, devices that can remove up to 98 percent of sulfur dioxide from power-plant emissions, according to a recent EPA analysis.

Mercury levels are still too high in many rivers. Pay attention to that in our own backyard Miss Pinenuts, instead of jetting off to some other country. Let these other countries decide to treat their land, air, and water in whatever way they wish. It is none of your blankety blank business,…
===========
LMAO — I couldn’t have said it better.

This, admittedly is a take on an old joke. Anyway, Lisa Jackson’s hiring an individual for a position at the EPA and she’s got it narrowed down to 3 applicants: a civil engineer, a statistician, and an ecologist from an NGO. She asks the engineer, “What does urban sustainability mean?” He says, “Well, it’s about structures being engineered to withstand expected weather patterns.” She tells him thanks and shows him the door. She asks the statistician. He tells her that it’s about a statistical analysis determining whether the volume of goods and services leaving a specific urban environment is sustained by the volume entering it. She tells him thanks and shows him the door. Then she asks the ecologist what urban sustainability means. He tells, “Well it’s whatever you want it to mean.” She hires him on the spot

I think Lisa is envious of Janet, and is emulating her.
==================================================
If by Janet you mean Reno, then you’re correct! It isn’t about pollution, protection, or the environment. It’s about jackbooted thugs dressed in hemp clothes usurping individual liberties while destroying the economy.

Well, I’m a U.S. citizen and taxpayer. The least she could do while she’s over there is pick up a nice silk tie for me. I wouldn’t want to see my tax dollars totally wasted.
/snarky sarc

Excellent rant Mr. E.! I can’t find anything in your post with which I disagree. Your analysis is spot on. I leave it to the Grammar Police (or Hugh Pepper… hahahahahaha) to find anything wrong with what you have written.

Willis– the definition of “urban sustainability” is simple,”From each, according to his abilities; to each, according to his needs.”.

Wow! That sounds like Utopia, does it not? LOL!

The reality of that “urban Utopia/sustainability” model was tried out in USSR, and from talking with my Russian friends, it really wasn’t sustainable nor very Utopian…. I think “hell on Earth” is the most common description used to describe “urban sustainability” in actual practice…

Kasuha says: March 30, 2012 at 11:10 am
“…….. different people have different ideas of what “sustainable development” is. Mine, for example, is to transfer from fossil fuels to nuclear in the first step.”

I have a small doubt about nuclear. In short or medium time range nuclear appears to be good. In the long run, however, nuclear requires fossil fuel energy inputs in many ways. To begin with, we have to mine uranium ore, then purify it, manufacture rods, and transport them to the site. In parallel we have to prepare the site and construct reactors and related buildings: all there require fossil energy, though up to this stage its amount is not so large.
After 30 to 50 years’ operation, the reactor and the plant facility must be demolished. The energy required is much more than that for ordinary houses/buildings. For instance our government estimates it’ll take 30 to 50 years to safely demolish the Fukushima plants; a huge amount ot fossil energy should be used in that operation.
In addition, storage of used fuel will be a very big work, again consuming much fossil energy.
Hence for me it is quite dubtful whether nuclear is really better than fossil fuels per se in a Life-Cycle-Assessment viewpoint. ….Just a thought.

Willis Eschenbach says:
March 30, 2012 at 12:31 pm
Since the EPA clearly thinks that windmills and solar plants are sustainable and CO2 is teh eevil, how can you possibly see nothing wrong with the EPA’s role in “sustainability”? You seem very reasonable with your call for nuclear, while the EPA opposes, well, just about everything. You might enjoy my post “Nothing is Sustainable“.
__________________________________________________

The question is what is consider wrong, the program as a whole, or meaning of individual words. EPA’s program is also to reduce pollutants and we’re not calling for them to stop reducing pollutants, only to stop seeing CO2 as a pollutant. It goes the same way with sustainability, IMO.
Of course both are supposed to have effect on what policies they are putting into the place.
The difference is, convincing the public that windmills and solar plants are not in fact sustainable is going to have much broader effect than just on what EPA is doing. And I believe the public opinion is already moving the right way. Once this is done, there will be no problem with EPA program anymore.

… The question is what is consider wrong, the program as a whole, or meaning of individual words. EPA’s program is also to reduce pollutants and we’re not calling for them to stop reducing pollutants, only to stop seeing CO2 as a pollutant. It goes the same way with sustainability, IMO.

Of course both are supposed to have effect on what policies they are putting into the place.
The difference is, convincing the public that windmills and solar plants are not in fact sustainable is going to have much broader effect than just on what EPA is doing. And I believe the public opinion is already moving the right way. Once this is done, there will be no problem with EPA program anymore.

Thanks for your thoughts, Kasuha. I fear you misunderstand bureaucracies and what is called “mission creep”. You see, the EPA no longer thinks their mission is to “reduce pollutants” as you reasonably state. I’d have little problem if they did that in a scientific manner.

The difficulty is, as their press release shows, they believe their mission is “ensuring national security” and “facilitating commerce” and “promoting sustainable development”.

So merely establishing that windmills and solar are not sustainable is far too little and way too late. We also have to crush their fantasy that they are in charge of national security and tasked with facilitating commerce … and that will be much, much harder.

While it may sound confusing for EPA to say that it does work on national security, the reality is that Congress assigned EPA certain homeland security responsibilities in the Bioterrorism Act of 2002. There were also a number of “Homeland Security Presidential Directives” issued in the early 2000-s that specifically assigned EPA some responsibilities. These mostly pertained to studying the security of our nation’s drinking water supplies, preparing for how to respond to bioterrorism attacks (e.g., in terms of decontamination), conducting vulnerability assessments, and so on. In short, EPA’s role in homeland securtity (which is very limited, in my opinion) was originally set in to motion by Congress and the Executive Office, not by the agency itself. Just mentioning this for context.

That being said, I also don’t know what is meant by urban sustainability!!!

China is importing steam coal today, as we speak, and burning it in plants without even sulfur controls, as we speak.

…How about this article about the state of scrubbers on US coal power plants from 2004.

Coal-fired power plants supply half of the nation’s electricity. In 2004, two-thirds of this power came from plants without scrubbers, devices that can remove up to 98 percent of sulfur dioxide from power-plant emissions, according to a recent EPA analysis.

The Chinese Power sector of 10 years ago(when China was exporting coal at $22/ton) is not the Chinese power sector of today(they are importing at $100+/ton).

Economics change…so do practices.

So your claim is that the Chinese power plants have pollution controls equivalent to the ones that the US plants have?

You’re right that “Economics change…so do practices”. But there’s one practice that doesn’t change. The Chinese government shows no sign of changing their practice of lying about how advanced they are and how well their people are doing.

Let’s take mercury emissions from the burning of coal as an example. The US generates about 4,000 terawatt-hours of electricity per year, and the Chinese, about 3,700TWn/year. About 40% of US electricity comes from coal, that’s about 1,600 TWh/yr. For China it’s higher, about 70%, or about 2,600 TWh/year.

The problem is, China emits about 268 tonnes/year of mercury from its electricity generation, while the US emits only about 64 tonnes/year.

This means that for each kilowatt-hour of electricity generated, Chinese power plants are emitting some two and a half times as much mercury as US plants …

Harrywr, there’s a moral to this story, one that I learned from Chairman Mao. The Chinese government will lie through its teeth about how well it is doing. To hear them tell it, Chinese power plants emit only pure air and the smell of spring flowers … meanwhile, people in Beijing are dying from the pollution. You need to get more skeptical and dig under the numbers as I have just done in order to get nearer to the truth.

While it may sound confusing for EPA to say that it does work on national security, the reality is that Congress assigned EPA certain homeland security responsibilities in the Bioterrorism Act of 2002. There were also a number of “Homeland Security Presidential Directives” issued in the early 2000-s that specifically assigned EPA some responsibilities. These mostly pertained to studying the security of our nation’s drinking water supplies, preparing for how to respond to bioterrorism attacks (e.g., in terms of decontamination), conducting vulnerability assessments, and so on. In short, EPA’s role in homeland securtity (which is very limited, in my opinion) was originally set in to motion by Congress and the Executive Office, not by the agency itself. Just mentioning this for context.

Unfortunately, only one of these three directives is anything more than a general “look out for terrorists” directive. The third is HSPD-7, about which the EPA says:

HSPD-7 Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection requires Federal agencies to coordinate the protection of critical infrastructure and key resources. EPA is specifically responsible for drinking water and water treatment systems.

When you read HSPD-7, it says that EPA is the “sector-specific agency” for drinking water, and as such is required to do the following::

In accordance with guidance provided by the Secretary, Sector-Specific Agencies shall:

collaborate with all relevant Federal departments and agencies, State and local governments, and the private sector, including with key persons and entities in their infrastructure sector;

conduct or facilitate vulnerability assessments of the sector; and

encourage risk management strategies to protect against and mitigate the effects of attacks against critical infrastructure and key resources.

Note that that says nothing about “decontamination” or responding to bioterrorism …

So you are correct, the EPA was tasked to do a minor part of the US response to terror. So was my local town fire department and every cop shop in the county, everyone was put on alert … but that doesn’t make the mission of the local cops “national security”.

Willis, if I email my Minn. congressional reps they will tell me the EPA is about progress. They will call me crazy.

An environmentalist wrote recently “Environmentalists have lost their way.” Here’s his view of Utopia that I am obstructing.

….[we can halt]..”the growing divide of wealth between rich and poor. If instead ALL our national money were to be created by the State, and be SPENT into circulation, then nearly all outstanding debts could be paid off. The Green Party has from its start had the policy to issue ‘Citizens‘ Incomes’ – birthright payment of an income sufficient to meet basic needs. Given this, we could cease the futile demand for ‘full employment’ and instead pay attention to fostering [environmental changes] (The growing ‘Transition Town’ movement goes a long way toward this.)

………… we’ve been telling ourselves particular stories about who we are – the founding myths of our culture are all about endless progress, human centrality, the idea that we can control the natural environment and that we are separate from nature, that our technology will save us.”

I sent Anthony a article written by a friend about Agenda 21.. it is in PDF format with links and source links…

Thanks, Bill. Despite people’s assumptions, Anthony and I only communicate sporadically, and I wouldn’t dream of recommending what he should or shouldn’t publish unless he asked me specifically. He is the same with me, he never recommends what I should or shouldn’t write about. And both of those are just fine by me, we basically trust the other guy’s judgement and stay out of each other’s way.

So I fear I can’t help with your friend’s article, that’s up to Anthony.

Didn’t bother with my Congresswoman, as she’s only a short time temp until the Nov Elections. (Though as a Dem is most likely to win the seat outright.)

My opinion is that the EPA should primarily be a science research agency. It does the science and states determine on an individual basis what code requirements they want to adopt. They could provide resources for compliance enforcement to the states, but have no direct enforcement abilities.